A few days ago, I mentioned Professor Corey Bradshaw, the University of Adelaide academic who was being extremely vocal in his attempts to get Bjorn Lomborg defunded and ostracised.

I was blocked by Professor Bradshaw soon after my post appeared, but I gather that he is still hard at work demonstrating his willingness to sacrifice other people's careers to his own political imperatives:

It's no tantrum. Greenies are saving the world and nothing is beneath them. Nothing. Like an army of ATTPs, they have ultimately no morals to speak of, because of course world saving trumps everything, including every human being.

As well as denouncing "all government people" for being "all agents, criminal agents of the banks" who are syphoning our wealth "off to the banks, the faceless evil behind the whole financial system", Viv says:

We do face the extinction of the human race, quite soon. This is being concealed from us by the criminals.

Somehow, she links the upcoming extinction of the human race to the results of this year's general election, but I'm not sure I follow her reasoning, exactly.

These people are so consumed with the emotional need to appear more noble, and wiser than the rest of us, that any rational impulses they have get left at the starting gate.

All their intellectual energy is taken up with the need to defend the Right Position, rendering them utterly useless in any sphere but academia (where you don't actually need to do anything but sound clever).

From last link the author of the polemic has "no interest in discussing it......too much to think about right now." Well innit typical. These hypocrites have no mind of their own - they need to visit sKs or rc to find the accepted parrot-like response to tricky questions. All they are sure of is that they can't possibly be wrong because they hadn't given it a moments thought in the first place; someone much cleverer and greener than themselves has already issued condemnation and that's all the consideration their tiny minds need in order to to spread more hate. Meh!

The only good thing I can think of is that the PhD student has done well to avoid having this Bradshaw examine their thesis as one can only wonder at what he would bring to the examination. As an academic examining Masters and PhD theses, you have to put away your own ideas and opinions and mark a students work on its own merit. Something which this person has clearly shown an inability to do.

Sadly, all Australian universities have been colonised by people like those mentioned above. It is all part of the Great March Through the Institutions.

As in the UK, the number of "universities" has greatly expanded over the last few decades, with a consequent watering down of quality. It is easy to find an academic to agree with any proposition whatsoever, if you are a lazy journalist (but I repeat myself).

There are still outposts of academic rigour and excellence, especially in the hard sciences and mathematics. But they are numerically overwhelmed by the rest, due to the need to provide easy courses for people who would never have got near a university a few decades ago. We now have "degrees" in things like hospitality and sport, not to mention dozens of variants of psychology and sociology. They are complete junk.

I do wonder if some sort of uber-university model will emerge from all this, as the product differentiation once provided by a degree from a good university is almost gone.

If memory serves, we produce thousands & thousands of "degree" qualified students each year, but there are only around 25,000 degree qualified jobs created in said year! As someone said before, "What's the most frequent question a graduate asks someone? "Would you like fries with that?".

Science evolves. We are witnessing a birth of a green science, with new standards - both scientific and moral. The green science improves upon science the same way a straitjacket improves upon a jacket.

Over the next four years, it will have three main projects. One will focus on the smartest development goals for the UN post-2015 agenda, which will be adopted in New York in September. This project involves several Nobel Laureates and more than 80 of the world's and Australia's top economists.

And this

The cooperation between UWA and the Copenhagen Consensus Center will also mean that the President of Copenhagen Consensus, Dr Bjorn Lomborg, will spend time in Perth and across Australia to encourage a conversation on priorities for aid and development and the future prosperity of Australia.

Lomborg’s role is not to impose his ideas on those who have different, and likely more advanced, ideas than his own. It is about bringing leading experts in their field together. Lomborg would not have kept his organisation going in Denmark for the last ten years if he brought people in, only to smuggle (what are alleged to be) his inferior ideas through.Personally I think it is a great idea in principle to look at getting some of the greatest minds in the world to debate issues, and come up with solutions that get maximum benefit from limited resources. I might dispute the choices, but it is bound to be far better than some spin doctor, or even worse an anonymous blogger who does not understand economics, deciding what the priorities should be.

Green party is funded with 'unclean' money from Vince's solar/wind mafia subsidies and Viv Westwood's tax avoided income\\UPDATE: A Green Party spokesman tells Guido:“I’m not going to comment but I would distance us from any sort of sentiment like that.”//..yep but don't seemed to be bothered about DISTANCING themselves from her MONEY or the free PR

With so much blogging about how much you support people in the 'Third World' Bish, I'm surprised not to see a post of the DEC Appeal for Nepal or could it be that you use the people of the 'Third World' to promote your agenda???

"Sadly, all Australian universities have been colonised by people like those mentioned above."

Indeed but they have been targeted by the network. Look here at what is happening at Melbourne University, where Potsdam's Schellnhuber has been insinuating his staff into the campus and inventing yet another new Institute.

Or there is Jean Palutikof at Griffiths University who was formerly a Director at CRU.

http://www.nccarf.edu.au/nccarf/contacts-list

"Jean is Director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), based at Griffith University. Prior to joining NCCARF, she was based at the Met Office, UK, where she managed the production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report for Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability).

She is former Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences, and Director of the Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, UK, where she worked from 1979 to 2004.

Greens don't hate people - they just don't think too hard before they give an opinion as it's so easy to just repeat the opinion of someone else who they assume has thought harder than they did. Projecting those with alternative views as either stupid or immoral saves them having to waste time dealing with obviously wrong notions; wrong because they came from the hated business-friendly side of society.

To them it's all so simple - just stop using fossil fuels; we have the technology so clearly the only reason we have not done this so far is because of fossil fuel pushers keeping us addicted to their product. While in that reality distortion zone they can easily imagine they are doing the Africans a big favour by denying them from being addicted too and hence propel them straight to renewables nirvana without any complex transition.

The Greens' Natalie Bennett was on Breakfast tv yesterday morning, with a particularly nasty case of loss of voice (due to spouting too many lies, probably).She struggled through the interview, and at the end Bill Turnbull valiantly offered: 'Hope your voice gets better..'

Nah, Bill - it will always be a particularly grating version of 'Strine....

@JamesG: I just love the language of the econuts, it's all so cleverly contrived & manipulated. 20+ years ago they were at it on Panorama telling us the oil was going to run out completely by now. Oh how wrong they were & are only they will never admit it. Our "addiction" (nice deliberate manipulating & controlling link to a drugs/alcohol habit) will remain for many years to come, unfortunately for them, of necessity!

Thanks, michael hart, and yes, it does fit both threads. One of he similarities between religion and green is the lack of real care for people. The cause is always more important than the individual but the cause will never be met without the sum of the individuals. They're both about working against human nature rather than with it. Although they're masters of promoting jealousy as a way to garner support.

@Steve Our thoughts are with all people who are struggling today whether they be in Nepal or in developing countries cooking over a dangerous smokey wood fire cos they don't have access to gas.*- What we do today is not as powerful or useful as what we could have done for people over the previous years.- Take Taiwan, there will be sometime in the future another large earthquake or flooding event in countries like Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. However their governments will be in a far better state to deal with the situation and start rescuing people. You know why ?..That Samsung phone many of your neighbours have, those Seagate diskdrives, that Giant brand bicycle and Taiwan branded Tennis racquets ..All that biz & trade means taxes are paid and infrastructure exists on the ground to deal with disasters.

Mark Pawelek, he almost certainly didn't say he wanted to deny Africans clean water but he disagrees with Lomborg over his priorities putting water first. I'm sure both of them would advocate magically being able to address all needs at the same time but life doesn't work that way. Either he needs to have the courage of his convictions and say ‘I think acting on AGW (however ineffectively) is more important than providing, water, energy and industry to the poor’ and see how his ideas go down or he needs to stop calling for another to be fired for putting forward his version.

It might be only me left now, but I would encourage ATTP to return. I think we should critically engage with the other side, and that is what has happened. In contrast with the here at Bishop Hill, ATTP's two comments are much fuller. I would encourage people to compare and contrast the arguments of us both.

Interesting. An academic who obviously isn't, and a jerk that obviously is - a jerk, that is. The "academic" should be given a permanent holiday, and the jerk, well, you can't do much for people like that - there is no smart pill and no known drug creates intelligence. I could understand someone saying something like "you are misinterpreting what I said, but don't have the time right now to amplify," but to stand pat and show stupid and stubborn in the face of a not necessarily fair comment even though it is honest, well, borders on what it sounds like - stonewalling stupidity.

"With so much blogging about how much you support people in the 'Third World' Bish, I'm surprised not to see a post of the DEC Appeal for Nepal or could it be that you use the people of the 'Third World' to promote your agenda???"

Steve, you've made it pretty obvious who it is that does this sort of thing. (!!!)